1 2026:CGHC:709 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10228 of 2025 Lingraj @ Sonu Yadav S/o Hemraj Yadav Aged About 23 Years R/o Opposite Rajat Home, Harinagar Durg Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer Police Station Supela, District Durg (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06/01/2026 1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 640/2025 registered at Police Station, Supela, District Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 22/8(ख), 27(क), 29 of NDPS Act and Section 111 of B.N.S. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant was withdrawn by this Court in MCRC No. 9299/2025 vide order dated 18.11.2025, as the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 same was filed after submission of the charge-sheet and no bail application had been filed before the trial Court in respect of the offence under Section 111 of the BNS. Hence, the present second bail application. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 31.05.2025, the police of the concerned police station received secret information that the applicants, along with other co-accused persons, were standing outside Look and Shine Family Saloon, Katulboard, Bhilai, and were attempting to sell psychotropic tablets. Acting upon the said information, the police ofÏcials of Police Station Supela, Chowki– Smriti Nagar, conducted a raid and apprehended the applicants. During the raid, 45 tablets of Alprazolam were recovered from Lingraj, 130 tablets of Spas Trancun Plus were recovered from accused Somnath Pandey, and 144 tablets of Spas Trancun Plus were recovered from the applicant Santosh Chandrakar. Thereafter, the contraband drugs were seized and the accused persons were arrested on 31.05.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the earlier bail application of the applicant was withdrawn by this Court in MCRC No. 9299/2025 vide order dated 18.11.2025, as it was filed after the submission of the charge-sheet and no bail application had been filed before the trial Court in respect of the offence under Section 111 of the BNS. He further submits that nothing has been seized from the exclusive possession of the applicant, and the present applicant has allegedly been 3 implicated solely on the basis of suspicion. He further submits that the other co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27.10.2025, and therefore, on the principle of parity, the applicant may also be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has already been filed. It is further submitted that during the raid, contraband articles were recovered from the present applicant as well as co-accused and the quantity of the seized drugs from the present applicant amounts to intermediate quantity under the NDPS Act. However, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail at this stage. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and further the fact that the earlier bail application of the applicant was withdrawn by this Court in MCRC No. 9299/2025 vide order dated 18.11.2025, as the same was filed after submission of the charge-sheet and no bail application had been filed before the trial Court in respect of the offence under Section 111 of the BNS and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and further the quantity of contraband article which has been recovered from the possession of the applicant, is less than commercial quantity and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take sometime and the applicant is in jail since 02.06.2025, thus, without further 4 commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 9. Let the Applicant – Lingraj @ Sonu Yadav, involved in Crime No. 640/2025 registered at Police Station, Supela, District Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 22/8(ख), 27(क), 29 of NDPS Act and Section 111 of B.N.S, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in 5 accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal